qimen_zeri

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses performance targets and the general workflow (scoring, filtering), but does not explicitly state if the tool is read-only, side-effect free, or any authorization requirements. Behavioral traits are partially covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Input, Scoring, Filters, Output, Performance). It is relatively concise given the complexity, though some details like scoring dimensions could be streamlined. No redundant statements.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 16 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input, scoring dimensions, filter conditions, output structure, and performance goals. It is comprehensive for a specialized tool, though return value details could be more formal.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description groups parameters and explains scoring dimensions and filters, adding some context. However, it does not provide new syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function as '奇門遁甲擇日功能' (Qi Men Dun Jia date selection) and '在指定日期範圍內篩選吉時' (filter auspicious times within a date range). It distinguishes from sibling tools like qimen_basic and qimen_yongshen by focusing specifically on date selection for various event types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists inputs and outputs but lacks scenarios or exclusions. Context suggests it is for date selection, but no comparison to sibling tools is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.